Comments on: Pro Publica http://newslawyer.com/2007/10/15/pro-publica/ News and Law and News + Law Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:06:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Alex http://newslawyer.com/2007/10/15/pro-publica/#comment-28 Alex Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:54:10 +0000 http://newmedialaw.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/pro-publica/#comment-28 More thoughts on this interesting subject: http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=121286 <i>Consider the case of news aggregator Moreover Technologies (and its parent company, VeriSign), which is being sued by the Associated Press for copyright infringement and misappropriation because Moreover's news-reader service "harvests" headlines and portions of AP stories to deliver to its paying subscribers -- but it doesn't pay anything to the AP. "The Associated Press spends hundreds of millions of dollars every year gathering and reporting the news," AP CEO Tom Curley said on Oct. 9, the day his company filed suit. "We've done this for more than 160 years, often under tremendous time pressure and often at great risk to our journalists. When someone uses our content without our permission, they are free riding on our newsgathering." Curley actually sounded not only offended but hurt -- like he'd been mugged -- and who can blame him? His point, the subtext of his statement, is important: Quality journalism is expensive, and if aggregator companies such as Moreover fail to share revenue with journalism practitioners, it's eventually going to drive journalism practitioners into the ground. And then who do you steal from, smarty-pants? </i> More thoughts on this interesting subject:

http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=121286

Consider the case of news aggregator Moreover Technologies (and its parent company, VeriSign), which is being sued by the Associated Press for copyright infringement and misappropriation because Moreover’s news-reader service “harvests” headlines and portions of AP stories to deliver to its paying subscribers — but it doesn’t pay anything to the AP.

“The Associated Press spends hundreds of millions of dollars every year gathering and reporting the news,” AP CEO Tom Curley said on Oct. 9, the day his company filed suit. “We’ve done this for more than 160 years, often under tremendous time pressure and often at great risk to our journalists. When someone uses our content without our permission, they are free riding on our newsgathering.”

Curley actually sounded not only offended but hurt — like he’d been mugged — and who can blame him? His point, the subtext of his statement, is important: Quality journalism is expensive, and if aggregator companies such as Moreover fail to share revenue with journalism practitioners, it’s eventually going to drive journalism practitioners into the ground. And then who do you steal from, smarty-pants?

]]> By: Alex http://newslawyer.com/2007/10/15/pro-publica/#comment-12 Alex Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:09:38 +0000 http://newmedialaw.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/pro-publica/#comment-12 Gapeseed, get real about the idea of "citizen journalists." They don't exist. Journalism is a job that involves work. People may play like a journalist for a while, but they're going to get bored when they (a) aren't read or (b) aren't paid. Don't believe the hype. How many of the billions of blogs out there whither each year after their authors abandon all hope. There will always be a market for information brokers, professional explainers and people who can write clearly and concisely. The group think of 116th and Broadway shouldn't get you down. The jobs aren't going away, but they are changing. I don't know what it's going to look like. But you can bet it will look different than it does to the dinosaurs there. Yeah, locals are always conflicted by loyalties. You can't go killing the golden calf every day of the week. But again, pull what you hear from the ivory tower back to the real world. The real conflict a journalist faces? TIME. Do I spend five hours hunting down leads and following up on rumors and tips or five minutes rehashing this press release? The output, in terms of word count, is the same. The majority of journalists (not the elites that you see in the WSJ or The New Yorker) are judged by their ability to fill the book. They face TK empty pages each week or have to post 10+ blog entries per day to put food on the table. You're right about the cost issue. The effort to output ratio is very different for an investigative piece than for a press-release rewrite. What's really interesting is the perceived VALUE of an investigative piece. Betcha that's lower. Especially when the blogosphere echo chamber can substantively pull the juicy bits out of your story, drop a link in to your piece and think that's okay. GONE are the days when somebody who wanted to read your story would have to actually go out and BUY your news paper. And people generally DON'T click through. Hell, I didn't click through to the story linked in the post above. I don't mean to come off all vitriol and vinegar, but the news business IS BROKEN. I support anyone--Gapeseed, Tim, CUJS--who is thinking through how to fix it. Journalism is part public trust. There is a need to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. The press can help right wrongs, expose lies and change the world for the better. I believe all that. But I look to my local paper and see crap. Human interest stories that aren't interesting, reprocessed press releases and AP downloads. I see a dying industry staffed by morons, writing for octogenarians and losing mind-share. I know that business that don't evolve to make money die. Journalists have to decide what it is that they do better than anybody else and focus on that. Get out of assignments that could be outsourced to India. Quit getting caught in the margins game of "better, faster, cheaper" commodity content. Don't write stories, such as earnings announcements, that computers are already trained to do! That's the clarion call for anyone studying journalism. The agenda of the CUJS has to expand beyond the "critical issues" of conflicts of interest, off-the-record and appropriate sourcing. The news business is going through the single biggest upheaval since cable news. Figure out how to make money doing ethical journalism---that's a critical issue. Gapeseed, get real about the idea of “citizen journalists.” They don’t exist. Journalism is a job that involves work. People may play like a journalist for a while, but they’re going to get bored when they (a) aren’t read or (b) aren’t paid. Don’t believe the hype. How many of the billions of blogs out there whither each year after their authors abandon all hope.

There will always be a market for information brokers, professional explainers and people who can write clearly and concisely. The group think of 116th and Broadway shouldn’t get you down. The jobs aren’t going away, but they are changing. I don’t know what it’s going to look like. But you can bet it will look different than it does to the dinosaurs there.

Yeah, locals are always conflicted by loyalties. You can’t go killing the golden calf every day of the week. But again, pull what you hear from the ivory tower back to the real world. The real conflict a journalist faces? TIME. Do I spend five hours hunting down leads and following up on rumors and tips or five minutes rehashing this press release? The output, in terms of word count, is the same. The majority of journalists (not the elites that you see in the WSJ or The New Yorker) are judged by their ability to fill the book. They face TK empty pages each week or have to post 10+ blog entries per day to put food on the table.

You’re right about the cost issue. The effort to output ratio is very different for an investigative piece than for a press-release rewrite.

What’s really interesting is the perceived VALUE of an investigative piece. Betcha that’s lower. Especially when the blogosphere echo chamber can substantively pull the juicy bits out of your story, drop a link in to your piece and think that’s okay.

GONE are the days when somebody who wanted to read your story would have to actually go out and BUY your news paper.

And people generally DON’T click through. Hell, I didn’t click through to the story linked in the post above.

I don’t mean to come off all vitriol and vinegar, but the news business IS BROKEN. I support anyone–Gapeseed, Tim, CUJS–who is thinking through how to fix it.

Journalism is part public trust. There is a need to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. The press can help right wrongs, expose lies and change the world for the better. I believe all that. But I look to my local paper and see crap. Human interest stories that aren’t interesting, reprocessed press releases and AP downloads. I see a dying industry staffed by morons, writing for octogenarians and losing mind-share.

I know that business that don’t evolve to make money die. Journalists have to decide what it is that they do better than anybody else and focus on that. Get out of assignments that could be outsourced to India. Quit getting caught in the margins game of “better, faster, cheaper” commodity content. Don’t write stories, such as earnings announcements, that computers are already trained to do!

That’s the clarion call for anyone studying journalism. The agenda of the CUJS has to expand beyond the “critical issues” of conflicts of interest, off-the-record and appropriate sourcing. The news business is going through the single biggest upheaval since cable news. Figure out how to make money doing ethical journalism—that’s a critical issue.

]]> By: gapeseed http://newslawyer.com/2007/10/15/pro-publica/#comment-11 gapeseed Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:39:38 +0000 http://newmedialaw.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/pro-publica/#comment-11 You're probably right, Alex, except that purely local stories can be broken by any blogger. So what does that mean for journalists, who are competing with laptop-owning nosy neighbors who will write for free out of joy or spite? What does that make Columbia Journalism students? Highly leveraged überbloggers? The wordsmith equivalent of real estate brokers trolling Craig's List for leads? In addition, local journalists might be closer to the scene, but might also be compromised by conflicting loyalties in a way parachuters into a community are not. In that way, investigative journalists (with help from local bloggers and journalists) might have the edge over the locals. Ultimately, opinions here are speculative unless we know the financials. The big investigative pieces are presumably time and money-intensive, and if so, the payoff for newspapers would probably not be worth the up-front costs. You’re probably right, Alex, except that purely local stories can be broken by any blogger. So what does that mean for journalists, who are competing with laptop-owning nosy neighbors who will write for free out of joy or spite? What does that make Columbia Journalism students? Highly leveraged überbloggers? The wordsmith equivalent of real estate brokers trolling Craig’s List for leads?

In addition, local journalists might be closer to the scene, but might also be compromised by conflicting loyalties in a way parachuters into a community are not. In that way, investigative journalists (with help from local bloggers and journalists) might have the edge over the locals.

Ultimately, opinions here are speculative unless we know the financials. The big investigative pieces are presumably time and money-intensive, and if so, the payoff for newspapers would probably not be worth the up-front costs.

]]> By: alex http://newslawyer.com/2007/10/15/pro-publica/#comment-10 alex Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:56:31 +0000 http://newmedialaw.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/pro-publica/#comment-10 Now that's smart. Outsource it to an organization that CAN break news. It's already happened with the AP, right? The thing is, most of the best investigative journalism is LOCAL. How do you scale that model? It only works if you have breaking/investigative news at a NATIONAL or GLOBAL level. Everyone knows that the best investigative journalism is when you find out why TK people in TK years have been crushed in the trash compactor at the grocery store at Broadway and 110. That's where it's at for investigatory journalists. I mean look at the TMZ scoop on the Mel Gibson meltdown. What was that other than local journalism (a police report) applied to a nationally-recognized brand. I'm skeptical. Now that’s smart. Outsource it to an organization that CAN break news. It’s already happened with the AP, right? The thing is, most of the best investigative journalism is LOCAL. How do you scale that model? It only works if you have breaking/investigative news at a NATIONAL or GLOBAL level. Everyone knows that the best investigative journalism is when you find out why TK people in TK years have been crushed in the trash compactor at the grocery store at Broadway and 110. That’s where it’s at for investigatory journalists.

I mean look at the TMZ scoop on the Mel Gibson meltdown. What was that other than local journalism (a police report) applied to a nationally-recognized brand.

I’m skeptical.

]]>